This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
in Turner v. Frowein, 253 Conn. 312, 351, 752 A.2d 955
(2000)].
International Child Abduction Remedies Act, Chapter 97,
P.L.100-300, 22 USC §§ 9001-9011.
Enforcement of foreign child custody order re return of
child under Hague Convention. “A court of this state shall
enforce a foreign child custody determination or an order of
a federal court or another state court for return of a child
under The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction made under factual
circumstances in substantial conformity with the
jurisdictional standards of this chapter, including reasonable
notice and opportunity to be heard to all affected persons, as
a child custody determination of another state under
sections 46b-115u to 46b-115gg, inclusive, unless such
determination was rendered under child custody law which
violates fundamental principles of human rights or unless
such determination is repugnant to the public policy of this
state.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-115jj (2017).
LEGISLATIVE: 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. vol. 4, pp. 386-403. Excerpts from H.
Report # 100-525 including “section-by section analysis of
the Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute”
You can visit your local law library, search the most recent U.S. Code on the U.S. Code website or search the most recent statutes and public acts on the Connecticut General Assembly website to confirm that you are accessing the most up-to-date laws.
REGULATIONS: International Child Abduction, 22 C.F.R. §§ 94.1 - 94.8
(2018).
§ 94.5 Application
§ 94.6 Procedures for children abducted to the United
States
§ 94.7 Procedures for children abducted from the United
States
CASES:
U.S. Supreme Court and 2nd Circuit Cases
Tann v. Bennett, 807 F. 3d 51, 52-53 (2nd Cir. 2015).
“Indeed, one of the primary purposes of the Hague
Convention was to prevent situations where a family
member would remove a child to jurisdictions more
favorable to [his or her] custody claims in order to obtain a
right of custody from the authorities of the country to which
the child ha[d] been taken.” Mota v. Castillo, 692 F.3d 108,
112 (2d Cir.2012) (quoting Gitter, 396 F.3d at 129).”
Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 1224,
1229, 188 L. Ed. 2d 200 (2014). “This case concerns another
exception to the return remedy. Article 12 of the Convention
states the general rule that when a court receives a petition
for return within one year after the child's wrongful removal,
the court ‘shall order the return of the child forthwith.’ Id., at
9. Article 12 further provides that the court,
‘where the proceedings have been commenced after the
expiration of the period of one year [from the date of the
wrongful removal], shall also order the return of the
child, unless it is demonstrated that the child is now
settled in its new environment.’ Ibid.
Thus, at least in some cases, failure to file a petition for
return within one year renders the return remedy
unavailable.”
Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 133 S. Ct. 1017, 1021, 185
L. Ed. 2d 1 (2013). “The Hague Convention on the Civil
Aspects of International Child Abduction generally requires
courts in the United States to order children returned to their
countries of habitual residence, if the courts find that the
children have been wrongfully removed to or retained in the
United States. The question is whether, after a child is
returned pursuant to such an order, any appeal of the order
is moot.”
Souratgar v. Fair, 720 F.3d 96 (2nd Cir. 2013). “The removal
of a child under the Convention is deemed ‘wrongful’ when ‘it
is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person . . .
under the law of the State in which the child was habitually
resident immediately before the removal.’ Abbott, 130 S.Ct.
at 1989 (quotation marks omitted). Under the Convention,
Once you have identified useful cases, it is important to update the cases before you rely on them. Updating case law means checking to see if the cases are still good law. You can contact your local law librarian to learn about the tools available to you to update cases.
stated previously, a trial court is authorized under article 13b
to deny a petition for the child's return upon a showing, by
clear and convincing evidence, that ‘there is a grave risk that
his or her return would expose the child to physical or
psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an
intolerable situation.’ Our task, therefore, is to determine
whether a finding that the child would be subject to a grave
risk of harm if returned to the petitioning parent is, without
more, sufficient to justify a trial court's decision to decline to
order the child's return to his or her country of habitual
residence. In doing so, we are mindful of the overarching
Once you have identified useful cases, it is important to update the cases before you rely on them. Updating case law means checking to see if the cases are still good law. You can contact your local law librarian to learn about the tools available to you to update cases.
Once you have identified useful cases, it is important to update the cases before you rely on them. Updating case law means checking to see if the cases are still good law. You can contact your local law librarian to learn about the tools available to you to update cases.
TREATISES: 8 Arnold H. Rutkin et al., Connecticut Practice Series, Family
Law And Practice with Forms (3d ed. 2010).
Chapter 40. Jurisdiction to Enter and Enforce Custody
Orders
§ 40:27. International application
§ 40:28. Enforcement jurisdiction under the UCCJEA,
generally
1 Thomas R. Young, Legal Rights of Children (Rev. 3d Ed.
2017-2018).
Chapter 5. Parental Kidnapping of Children
§ 5;12. International Aspects of Child Abductions
§ 5:13. International Child Abduction Remedies Act;
The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction
5 Sandra Morgan Little, Child Custody and Visitation Law &
Practice (2017).
Chapter 32. International Enforcement of Child
Custody
§ 32.02. Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction
§ 32.03. International Enforcement Outside the Hague
Convention
Gloria F. DeHart, ed., International Child Abductions: A
Guide to Applying the Hague Convention, With Forms (2d ed.
1993).
LAW REVIEWS: Kristina Daugirdas and Julian Davis, editors. U.S. Supreme
Court Interprets Child Abduction Treaty, 108 Am. J. Int'l L.
557 (2014).
Reid T. Sherard, Demystifying International Child Abduction
Claims Under the Hague Convention, South Carolina Lawyer
(2013).
Jennifer Paton, The Correct Approach to the Examination of
the Best Interests of the Child in Abduction Convention
Proceedings Following the Decision of the Supreme Court in
Re E (Children) (Abduction: Custody Appeal), Journal of
Private International Law, Volume 8, Number 3 (December
2012), pp. 545-574.
Elizabeth Pitman, Making the Interests of the Child
Paramount: Representation for Children in the Hague
Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction, 17 Cardozo J. Int'l & Comp. L. 515 (2009).
You can click on the links provided to see which law libraries own the title you are interested in, or visit our catalog directly to search for more treatises.
Public access to law review databases is available on-site at each of our law libraries.
Section 2: Federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) A Guide to Resources in the Law Library
SCOPE: Bibliographic resources relating to the Federal PKPA as it relates
to Connecticut.
SEE ALSO: Section 3: Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and
Enforcement Act
DEFINITIONS: Purpose: “deter interstate abductions and other unilateral
removals of children undertaken to obtain custody and
visitations awards.” P.L. 96-611 § 7(c)(7).
“Under the PKPA, a court of one state generally must
enforce, and may not modify, a child custody determination
of another state when the custody determination was made
consistent with the provisions of the PKPA.” Murphy v.
Woerner, 748 P.2d 749, 750 (Alaska 1988).
Home state: “means the State in which, immediately
preceding the time involved, the child lived with his parents,
a parent, or a person acting as parent, for at least six
consecutive months, and in the case of a child less than six
months old, the State in which the child lived from birth with
any of such persons. Periods of temporary absence of any of
such persons are counted as part of the six month or other
period;” 28 USC §1738A(b)(4) (2018).
STATUTES:
28 USC § 1738A (2018) - Full faith and credit given to child
custody determinations.
CASES:
Connecticut
Scott v. Somers, 97 Conn. App. 46, 55, 903 A.2d 663
(2006). “Because Somers continues to reside in Florida, the
Florida court has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over its
custody determination, under Florida law, until a Florida
court determines that significant connections do not exist in
Florida. Thus, a party seeking to modify Florida's custody
determination must obtain an order from Florida stating that
it no longer has jurisdiction. This was not done in the
present case and, therefore, Connecticut did not have
jurisdiction to modify Florida's order.”
Brown v. Brown, 195 Conn. 98, 119-120, 486 A.2d 1116
(1985). “Geared as the PKPA is toward establishing national
jurisdictional standards that endeavor to reduce interstate
child abductions, the application of the PKPA to this case
initially turns on the definition of a ‘custody determination.’
We believe that the orders of the Florida court which, in
Once you have identified useful cases, it is important to update the cases before you rely on them. Updating case law means checking to see if the cases are still good law. You can contact your local law librarian to learn about the tools available to you to update cases.
effect, generated this Connecticut action, fall squarely within
the PKPA definition of a ‘custody determination.’ 28 U.S.C. §
1738A (b) (3).”
Unreported Connecticut Decisions
Perez v. Negron, Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford
at Hartford, No. HHD FA 14-4072256 (October 22, 2014) (59
Conn. L. Rptr. 170). “Jurisdiction in this case therefore
comes down to the question of whether a court in Puerto
Rico or a court in Connecticut, each having the authority to
do so, first made a custody determination entitled to the
other's full faith and credit. The following section of the PKPA
is critical to resolving that question:
(e) Before a child custody or visitation determination is
made, reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard
shall be given to the contestants, any parent whose
parental rights have not been previously terminated and
any person who has physical custody of a child.
28 U.S.C. §1738A(e). In this case, both courts have entered
child custody orders. Under the PKPA, the order entitled to
full faith and credit is not simply the first one entered, but
the first one entered with the benefit of the due process
protections stated in 28 U.S.C. §1738A(e).”
Lebejko v. Lebejko, Superior Court, Judicial District of
Windham at Putnam, No. FA-064004870 (Feb. 8, 2007) (42
Conn. L. Rptr. 760). “The purpose behind the PKPA was to
eliminate the four ‘bases’ or ‘factors’ in the original UCCJA
which had resulted in all of the conflicts and resulting
inconsistencies which had created an unworkable and non-
uniform interstate act. Instead, enforceability under the
PKPA was to be based on the priority of home state
jurisdiction. That provision of the uniform act was adopted in
Connecticut as Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-115k.”
Venditti v. Plonski, Superior Court, Judicial District of
Ansonia-Milford at Milford, No. FA-01 0076354 S (Feb. 5,
2002) (2002 WL 241376). “Even though the facts may be
unclear as to the defendant's permanent intentions, this
court does not need-to find that Arizona is in fact the home
state of the minor child. Using the significant connections
test, it is clear that the child has more tied to Arizona and
that jurisdiction should reside in that state. The plaintiff will
have full opportunity to contest custody and to present all
evidence necessary for a thoughtful custody and visitation
determination in that state. Therefore, the motion to dismiss
is granted.”
Rowland v. Rowland, Superior Court, Judicial District of
Ansonia-Milford at Milford, No. FA-97 0057152 S (Aug. 19,
Once you have identified useful cases, it is important to update the cases before you rely on them. Updating case law means checking to see if the cases are still good law. You can contact your local law librarian to learn about the tools available to you to update cases.
Devone v. Finley, 148 Conn. App. 647, 653-54, 87 A.3d
1120 (2014). “The Georgia Superior Court, in accordance
with the law prescribed by its state, issued a temporary
custody order giving the defendant immediate custody of the
minor child. That court found that the plaintiff failed to
legitimize the child and thus concluded that the defendant is
the only party entitled to custody of the child. The full faith
and credit clause requires our courts to recognize and
enforce the judgment of the Georgia Superior Court. In so
doing, the trial court held that the plaintiff, who has no
recognized custody rights over the minor child, lacked
standing to bring a custody application in this state.”
In re Iliana M., 134 Conn. App. 382, 390, 38 A.3d 130
(2012). “At the outset, we note our agreement with the
decisions of the Superior Court that have set forth the goals
of the UCCJEA. ‘The purposes of the UCCJEA are to avoid
jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts of other
states in matters of child custody; promote cooperation with
the courts of other states; discourage continuing
controversies over child custody; deter abductions; avoid re-
litigation of custody decisions; and to facilitate the
enforcement of custody decrees of other states. . . . The
UCCJEA addresses inter-jurisdictional issues related to child
custody and visitation.’”
In re Deleon J., 290 Conn. 371, 377-378, 963 A.2d. 53
(2009). “In addressing the issue of jurisdiction, the court
noted that it had made an initial child custody determination,
pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-115k, when it ordered
protective supervision of the child on September 21, 2000,
and that it subsequently had modified that disposition on
April 22, 2002, when it ordered guardianship of the child to
be transferred to the grandmother. The court further
determined that the respondent and the grandmother both
reside in Connecticut. The court concluded, therefore, that
its exclusive, continuing jurisdiction had not expired
pursuant to § 46b-115l(a)(1).”
Temlock v. Temlock, 95 Conn. App. 505, 520-521, 898 A.2d
209 (2006). “Even when a Connecticut trial court does not
have exclusive jurisdiction over a child custody matter, it still
may maintain concurrent jurisdiction under the UCCJEA
pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-115l (b), but only ‘if it
has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under
Once you have identified useful cases, it is important to update the cases before you rely on them. Updating case law means checking to see if the cases
are still good law. You can contact your local law librarian to learn about the tools available to you to update cases.
certain circumstances, a Connecticut court must treat a
foreign custody determination as a child custody
determination of another state, pursuant to General Statutes
§46b-115ii. General Statutes §46b-115d sets out the
international application of the Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA): ‘[f]or purposes
of [the UCCJEA], any child custody order of a foreign country
shall be treated in the manner provided in section 46b-
115hh.’ General Statutes §46b-115hh defines a ‘[f]oreign
child custody determination,’ as used in §46b-115ii, as ‘any
judgment, decree or other order of a court or tribunal of
competent jurisdiction of a foreign state providing for legal
custody, physical custody or visitation with respect to a
child.’ Section 46b-115ii provides that ‘[a] court of this state
shall treat a foreign child custody determination made under
factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the
jurisdictional standards of this chapter, including reasonable
notice and opportunity to be heard to all affected persons, as
a child custody determination of another state under
sections 46b-115 to 46b-115t, inclusive, unless such
determination was rendered under child custody law which
violates fundamental principles of human rights or unless
such determination is repugnant to the public policy of this
state.’”
Perez v. Negron, Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford
at Hartford, No. HHD FA 14-4072256 (October 22, 2014) (59
Conn. L. Rptr. 170). “The father argues that, as an
emergency determination, the order of the Puerto Rico court
is only temporary and must give way now to the jurisdiction
of Connecticut, which can claim home state status. That
might have been the case if Puerto Rico had adopted
Connecticut's version of the UCCJEA, which provides for
emergency orders to remain in effect only until orders are
issued in a state having jurisdiction under another basis
(such as being the child's home state). Section 46b-115n of
the Connecticut General Statutes. But the present
jurisdictional assessment must be made on the basis of the
law of Puerto Rico, which has not adopted the UCCJEA and
its limitations on emergency jurisdiction. Scott v. Somers, 97
Once you have identified useful cases, it is important to update the cases before you rely on them. Updating case law means checking to see if the cases are still good law. You can contact your local law librarian to learn about the tools available to you to update cases.
Conn.App. 46, 52 (2006). And nothing in the PKPA itself
imposes a temporal limit on the jurisdiction that a state
acquires in an emergency situation described in 28 U.S.C.
§1738A(c)(2)(C).”
Desjardins v. Charity, Superior Court, Judicial District of New
London, No. FA 11-4115761 (Apr. 19, 2011). “It is this
court's obligation to determine under the Uniform Child
Custody and Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) that it
has jurisdiction to make an initial determination as to the
children's custody. Scott v. Somers, 97 Conn. App. 46
(2006). This duty implicates the subject matter jurisdiction
of the court and hence must be raised and determined by
the court on its own motion if not formally raised by the
parties. Absent a statutory basis for such exercise of
jurisdiction, the parties cannot by agreement confer
jurisdiction upon the court. Muller v. Muller, 43 Conn. App.
327 (1996).”
Lamptey-Mills v. Ward, Superior Court, Judicial District of
Hartford, No. FA 01 0726826 (June 16, 2005) (39 Conn. L.
Rptr. 523,525). "The purposes of the UCCJEA are to avoid
jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts of other
states in matters of child custody; promote cooperation with
the courts of other states; discourage continuing
controversies over child custody; deter abductions; avoid re-
litigation of custody decisions; and to facilitate the
enforcement of custody decrees of other states . . . The
UCCJEA addresses inter-jurisdictional issues related to child
custody and visitation. The UCCJEA allows a Connecticut
court to maintain exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over child
custody determinations until one of the enumerated events
under § 46b-115l occurs . . . In subsection (a) of § 46b-
115l, the decree-granting state retains exclusive continuing
jurisdiction until: (1) A court of this state or a court of
another state determines that the child, the child's parents
and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in
this state; or (2) a court of this state determines that (A)
this state is not the home state of the child, (B) a parent or
a person acting as a parent continues to reside in this state
but the child no longer has a significant relationship with
such parent or person, and (c) substantial evidence is no
longer available in this state concerning the child's care,
protection, training and personal relationships. Subsection
(b) provides: A court of this state which has made a child
custody determination but does not have exclusive,
continuing jurisdiction under this section may modify that
determination only if it has jurisdiction to make an initial
determination under section 46b-115k." (Citations omitted;
internal quotation marks omitted.)
Davis v. Kania, 48 Conn. Sup. 141, 146, 836 A.2d 480
(2003). “Since both the plaintiff and defendant were parties
Once you have identified useful cases, it is important to update the cases before you rely on them. Updating case law means checking to see if the cases are still good law. You can contact your local law librarian to learn about the tools available to you to update cases.
contravenes Connecticut policy nor violates its laws, the
plaintiff can, therefore, enforce his legal right in the state of
Connecticut.”
Lord v. Lord, Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at
Bridgeport, No. CV01 0380279 (Aug. 20, 2002) (33 Conn. L.
Rptr. 88, 90) (2002 WL 31125621). “If parties could consent
to jurisdiction in any forum, provisions of the UCCJEA itself
would be meaningless. General Statues § 46b-115k provides
that ‘a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial
child custody determination if’ certain facts are present.
Notably, an agreement by the parties that a court shall have
subject matter jurisdiction is not one of those factors.
General Statues § 46b-115l provides that ‘a court of this
state which has made a child custody determination
pursuant to sections 46b-115k to 46b-115m, inclusive, has
exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination
until’ certain determinations are made by Connecticut or
other state courts. Again, not included in this determination
is whether the parties have agreed that a court shall take
subject matter jurisdiction.”
Crawford v. Calayag, Superior Court, Judicial District of
Danbury, No. FA01-0344498 S (March 22, 2002) (2002 WL
653241). “Connecticut is not the ‘home state’ of the minor
child as that term is defined by § 46b-115a (7) of the
Connecticut General Statutes.
Under the provisions of the UCCJEA, the court has
exercised temporary jurisdiction in this matter and has
entered the temporary emergency orders recited above in
what it found to be the best interests of the minor child and
to address the concerns raised by the plaintiff regarding
alleged efforts by the defendant to deny the plaintiff access
to his minor child.”
Guillory v. Francks, Superior Court, Judicial District of
Windham at Willimantic, No. FA01-0065736S (Feb. 14,
2002) (2002 WL 442145). “From the record before this court
the court concludes that the Florida court continues to
exercise jurisdiction in the case . . . . This court is convinced,
based upon the continuing activity in the Florida court, that
Samantha's presence here in Connecticut is due to a
temporary custody order in favor of the plaintiff and thus
pursuant to § 46b-115(7) Florida remains the home state of
Samantha.”
Graham v. Graham, Superior Court, Judicial District of
Middlesex at Middletown, No. FA92-65185 (Feb. 6, 2002)
(2002 WL 241493). “Under the UCCJEA, jurisdiction largely
depends on the status of the involved individuals on the date
of the commencement of the proceeding. Jurisdiction
attaches at the commencement of a proceeding. C.G.S. §
Once you have identified useful cases, it is important to update the cases before you rely on them. Updating case law means checking to see if the cases are still good law. You can contact your local law librarian to learn about the tools available to you to update cases.
§ 40.13. Jurisdiction declined due to inconvenient forum
§ 40.14. —Criteria for determining inconvenient forum
§ 40.15. —Effect of determination as to inconvenient
forum
§ 40.16. Jurisdiction declined due to unjustifiable
conduct
§ 40.17. Relevance of best interests standard to
jurisdictional determinations
§ 40.18. Pleading under UCCJEA
§ 40.27. International application
§ 40.28. Enforcement jurisdiction under the UCCJEA,
generally
Louise Truax, Editor, Connecticut Family Law, LexisNexis
Practice Guide (2018).
§ 2.38. Checklist: Applying the UCCJEA
You can click on the links provided to see which law libraries own the title you are interested in, or visit our catalog directly to search for more treatises.
Article 13(b), a grave risk of harm from repatriation arises in
two situations: ‘(1) where returning the child means sending
him to a zone of war, famine, or disease; or (2) in cases of
serious abuse or neglect, or extraordinary emotional
dependence, when the court in the country of habitual
residence, for whatever reason, may be incapable or
unwilling to give the child adequate protection.’ Blondin IV,
238 F.3d at 162 (quotation marks omitted). The potential
harm to the child must be severe, and the ‘[t]he level of risk
and danger required to trigger this exception has
consistently been held to be very high.’ Norden-Powers v.
Beveridge, 125 F. Supp. 2d 634, 640 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) (citing
cases). The grave risk involves not only the magnitude of
the potential harm but also the probability that the harm will
You can visit your local law library, search the most recent U.S. Code on the U.S. Code website or search the most recent statutes and public acts on the Connecticut General Assembly website to confirm that you are accessing the most up-to-date laws.
Once you have identified useful cases, it is important to update the cases before you rely on them. Updating case law means checking to see if the cases
are still good law. You can contact your local law librarian to learn about the tools available to you to update cases.
materialize. Van de Sande v. Van de Sande, 431 F.3d 567,
570 (7th Cir. 2005).”
Turner v. Frowein, 253 Conn. 312, 351, 752 A.2d 955
(2000). “We emphasis that we do not disturb or modify the
trial court’s finding that returning the child to the defendant
would expose him to a ‘grave’ risk of harm, within the
meaning of article 13b. Thus, if the trial court remains
unable to find any reasonable means of repatriation that
would not effectively place the child in the defendant’s
immediate custody, either expressly or de facto, it should
deny the petition under the Hague Convention.”
Blondin v. Dubois, 189 F.3d 240, 249 (2nd Cir. 1999).
“Under the circumstances presented, we think it appropriate
to remand this matter to the District Court for further
consideration of the range of remedies that might allow both
the return of the children to their home country and their
protection from harm, pending a custody award in due
course by a French court with proper jurisdiction.”
State v. Vakilzaden, 251 Conn. 656, 663, 742 A.2d 767
(1999) “Thus, a parent who temporarily ‘abducts’ a child in
an effort to safeguard that child from an abusive situation,
but seeks appropriate legal redress under § 46b-93
(a)(3)(B) as soon as is feasible under the circumstances,
could not meet the necessary mens rea for custodial
interference because he or she would have the legal right to
take the child to protect him or her. We are confident that
our law enforcement authorities and our courts will be
sensitive to this reality.”
Unreported Connecticut Decisions
Dreiling v. Dreiling, Superior Court, Judicial District of
Hartford at Hartford, Nos. FA-155040055S, FA-154080175S
(Apr. 14, 2016) (2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 779). “A
Connecticut court may have temporary jurisdiction to make
a decision regarding custody if the child is within this state
and it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child
because the child or a sibling has been under a threat of
being abused or mistreated. §46b-115n(a)(2). If there is no
previous child custody determination enforceable under the
UCCJEA and a child custody proceeding has not been
commenced in a court having jurisdiction under a provision
substantially similar to §46b-115k, §46b-115l, or §46b-
115m, a child custody determination made pursuant to
§46b-115n will remain in effect until an order is obtained
from a court that has jurisdiction under a provision
substantially similar to §46b-115k, §46b-115l, or §46b-
115m. §46b-115n(b).”
Crowley v. Lounsbury, Superior Court, Judicial District of
Once you have identified useful cases, it is important to update the cases before you rely on them. Updating case law means checking to see if the cases are still good law. You can contact your local law librarian to learn about the tools available to you to update cases.
was no substantial evidence that the child's return would
expose him to physical or psychological harm or otherwise
place him in an intolerable situation."
Pantazatou v. Pantazatou, Superior Court, Judicial District of
Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, No. FA 960713571S (Sept.
24, 1997) (1997 WL 614519). “Did the respondent mother
prove by clear and convincing evidence that there was grave
risk of psychological harm of the child if returned to Greece?
The answer is yes. The Court was clearly convinced that to
return the child without the mother would create a grave risk
of psychological harm to the child and more particularly to
remove Nicole back to Greece without her mother would
create greatest risk of serious psychological harm both short
and long term.
Renovales v. Roosa, Superior Court, Judicial District of
Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, No. FA 91-0392232 (Sept.
27, 1991) (1991 Conn. Super. Lexis 2215) (1991 WL
204483). "The court finds that the respondent has failed to
prove by 'clear and convincing ' evidence that the children
will be ' exposed' to grave risk of either physical or
psychological harm or that they will be placed in an
intolerable situation."
Other Jurisdictions
Van de Sande v. Van de Sande, 431 F.3d 567, 571 (7th Circ.
2005). “If handing over custody of a child to an abusive
parent creates a grave risk of harm to the child, in the sense
that the parent may with some nonnegligible probability
injure the child, the child should not be handed over,
however severely the law of the parent's country might
punish such behavior. In such a case, any order divesting
the abducting parent of custody would have to be
conditioned on the child's being kept out of the custody of
the abusing parent until the merits of the custody dispute
between the parents could be resolved by the court in the
abusive parent's country.”
Danaipour v. McLarey, 386 F.3d 289, 295-296 (1st Cir.
Once you have identified useful cases, it is important to update the cases before you rely on them. Updating case law means checking to see if the cases are still good law. You can contact your local law librarian to learn about the tools available to you to update cases.
8 Arnold H. Rutkin et al., Connecticut Practice Series, Family
Law and Practice with Forms (3d ed. 2010).
Chapter 40. Jurisdiction to Enter and Enforce Custody
Orders
§ 40:9. Temporary emergency jurisdiction
§ 40:32. Enforcement jurisdiction under the UCCJEA—
Proceedings to take physical custody of a child
1 Sandra Morgan Little, Child Custody and Visitation Law &
Practice (2017).
Chapter 4. Interstate Child Custody Jurisdiction under
UCCJA, UCCJEA, and PKPA.
§4.21 Temporary Emergency Jurisdiction
Chapter 32. International Enforcement of Child Custody
You can click on the links provided to see which law libraries own the title you are interested in, or visit our catalog directly to search for more treatises.
Conn. L. Rptr. 69). “This action concerns the claimed
abduction of the plaintiff's two (2) minor children by the
children's father, the plaintiff's ex-husband. The claim is that
he, with the assistance of the other named defendants,
removed the children from the United States to Egypt via
Ireland. The other named defendants are the owner and/or
You can visit your local law library or search the most recent statutes and public acts on the Connecticut General Assembly website.
Once you have identified useful cases, it is important to update the cases before you rely on them. Updating case law means checking to see if the cases
are still good law. You can contact your local law librarian to learn about the tools available to you to update cases.
State v. Vakilzaden, 251 Conn. 656, 742 A.2d 767 (1999).
“. . .a joint custodian is not inherently immune from criminal
prosecution based solely on his or her status as joint
custodian if the state can prove all elements of the custodial
interference statute, including both knowledge and intent
beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Zamstein v. Marvasti, 240 Conn. 549, 566, 692 A.2d 781
(1997). “The plaintiff in the present case has failed to allege
sufficient facts to state a cause of action for the tort of child
abduction or custodial interference, as defined in Marshak v.
Marshak, [below] . . . because the plaintiff did not allege any
facts suggesting an unlawful custody of his children.”
Marshak v. Marshak, 226 Conn. 652, 665-666, 628 A.2d 964
(1993), overruled by State v. Vakilzaden. “We disagree
with the trial court's conclusion, however, that, under the
circumstances of this case, the defendant was liable for such
a tort. In order to impose liability on a third party for
conspiring with or aiding another in the removal of children
from the custodial parent, the third party must have
conspired with, or aided the other, ‘to do a criminal or an
unlawful act or a lawful act by criminal or unlawful means’ . .
. In this case, however, civil liability was predicated on acts
that were not themselves unlawful when they occurred
because on August 7, 1985, the date on which the defendant
drove the children and their father to New York, the father
still had joint legal custody of the children.”
Brown v. Brown, 195 Conn. 98, 119-120, 486 A.2d 1116
(1985). “Geared as the PKPA is toward establishing national
jurisdictional standards that endeavor to reduce interstate
child abductions, the application of the PKPA to this case
initially turns on the definition of a ‘custody determination.’
We believe that the orders of the Florida court which, in
effect, generated this Connecticut action, fall squarely within
the PKPA definition of a ‘custody determination.’” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1738A(b)(3)
Agnello v. Becker, 184 Conn. 421, 432-433, 440 A.2d 172
(1981). “The defendant also claims that the ‘reprehensible
conduct’ of the plaintiff, in taking the child from the home of
the defendant and allegedly ‘concealing’ her from the
defendant, supports the trial court’s conclusion that the New
Jersey decree should not be recognized . . . . We initially
Once you have identified useful cases, it is important to update the cases before you rely on them. Updating case law means checking to see if the cases are still good law. You can contact your local law librarian to learn about the tools available to you to update cases.
William B. Johnson, Annotation, Kidnapping Or Related
Offense By Taking Or Removing Child By Or Under Authority
Of Parent Or One In Loco Parentis, 20 ALR 4th 823 (1983).
5 COA 799 (1984), Cause Of Action Against Noncustodial
Parent For Interference With Custody Rights To Child.
I. Introduction
a. Prima Facie Case
b. Defenses
c. Parties
II. Substantive law overview
III. Practice and procedure
a. In general
§ 11. Advantage of action over other
remedies
b. Plaintiff’s proof
c. Recovery
IV. Appendix
§ 20. Sample case
§ 21. Sample complaint
§ 22. Research guide
TEXTS &
TREATISES:
8 Arnold H. Rutkin et al., Connecticut Practice Series, Family
Law And Practice with Forms (3d ed. 2010).
Chapter 43. Enforcement of Custody and Visitation
Orders
§ 43:11. Criminal sanctions
§ 43:12. Tort claims
1 Sandra Morgan Little, Child Custody and Visitation Law &
Practice (2017).
Chapter 5. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign
Judgments
PART D. Enforcement Under Federal and International
Law
§ 5.40. Tort remedy for child-snatching
§ 5.41. State Criminal Statutes: Custodial Interference
American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law of Torts 2d
(1977).
§ 700. Causing minor child to leave home or not return
to home
You can click on the links provided to see which law libraries own the title you are interested in, or visit our catalog directly to search for more treatises.
Section 6: Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) A Guide to Resources in the Law Library
SCOPE: Bibliographic resources relating to the federal Indian Child
Welfare Act (ICWA) and parental kidnapping of an Indian child.
DEFINITIONS: Indian child: “means any unmarried person who is under
age eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe
or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the
biological child of a member of an Indian tribe;” 25 U.S.C. §
1903(4) (2018).
Indian tribe: "means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or
other organized group or community of Indians recognized
as eligible for the services provided to Indians by the
Secretary because of their status as Indians, including any
Alaska Native village as defined in section 1602 (c) of title
43;" 25 U.S.C. § 1903(8) (2018).
Exclusive jurisdiction: "An Indian tribe shall have
jurisdiction exclusive as to any State over any child custody
proceeding involving an Indian child who resides or is
domiciled within the reservation of such tribe, except where
such jurisdiction is otherwise vested in the State by existing
Federal law. Where an Indian child is a ward of a tribal court,
the Indian tribe shall retain exclusive jurisdiction,
notwithstanding the residence or domicile of the child." 25
U.S.C. § 1911 (2018).
GUIDELINES: Federal Register: Guidelines for State Courts and Agencies in
Indian Child Custody Proceedings, 80 Fed. Reg. 10146
(February 25, 2015).
STATUTES:
Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 et seq.
(2018).
§ 1920. Improper removal of child from custody;
declination of jurisdiction; forthwith return of child:
danger exception. “Where any petitioner in an Indian
child custody proceeding before a State court has
improperly removed the child from custody of the parent
or Indian custodian or has improperly retained custody
after a visit or other temporary relinquishment of
custody, the court shall decline jurisdiction over such
petition and shall forthwith return the child to his parent
or Indian custodian unless returning the child to his
parent or custodian would subject the child to a
substantial and immediate danger or threat of such
danger.”
§ 1921. Higher State or Federal standard applicable
to protect rights of parent or Indian custodian of
You can visit your local law library, search the most recent U.S. Code on the U.S. Code website or search the most recent statutes and public acts on the Connecticut General Assembly website to confirm that you are accessing the most up-to-date laws.
§ 29.02. Domestic relations law and Indians: General
principles
§ 29.03. Indian Child Welfare Act: Policy and
Legislative History
§ 29.04. Indian Child Welfare Act: General application
§ 29.05. Involuntary child custody proceedings
§ 29.06. Voluntary child custody proceedings
§ 29.07. Placement of Indian children
§ 29.08. Post trial matters
§ 29.10. Bibliography
LAW REVIEWS:
Marcia Yablon, The Indian Child Welfare Act Amendments Of
2003, 38 Family L.Q. 689 (Fall 2004).
WEBSITE: U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Indian Affairs
Indian Child Welfare Act
You can click on the links provided to see which law libraries own the title you are interested in, or visit our catalog directly to search for more treatises.